Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between board size (B-SIZE) and financial and reputational corporate performance in top companies ranked by the Business Monitor of Corporate Reputation – MERCO in Colombia. Design/methodology/approach This paper conducts correlations and cluster analysis in order to classify firms based on performance and control variables, using a sectional sample of 84 large companies in Colombia over the period 2008-2012. Findings This research founds that large boards are associated with high performance on corporate reputation, as stated by the resource dependence theory, and a low-financial performance, as predicted by the agency theory. However, the results indicate that there is no relation between financial and reputational performance. Research limitations/implications This research considered only large companies listed by MERCO. Therefore, the results can only be generalized for top firms in Colombia according to this list. However, results add empirical evidence to theoretical debate between B-SIZE and firm performance considering financial and reputational indicators. Practical implications According to the OECD manual of good corporate governance practices, the optimal B-SIZE has between five to nine core members. The board structure has a direct impact over the firm’s financial and reputational performance and must be carefully analyzed by shareholders to balance the size according to expected results and firm’s features like family ownership, exportation activities and norms of stock markets. Originality/value This paper contributes to the existing literature on the relationship between B-SIZE and corporate performance with the evaluation of financial and reputational results for the case of an emerging economy. In Latin America, this analysis must go beyond OECD recommendations, and shall consider the context of an emerging country based on empirical evidence.

No abstract

No abstract

Applications of non-parametric frontier production methods such as Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) have gained popularity and recognition in scientometrics. DEA seems to be a useful method to assess the efficiency of research units in different fields and disciplines. However, DEA results give only a synthetic measurement that does not expose the multiple relationships between scientific production variables by discipline. Although some papers mention the need for studies by discipline, they do not show how to take those differences into account in the analysis. Some studies tend to homogenize the behaviour of different practice communities. In this paper we propose a framework to make inferences about DEA efficiencies, recognizing the underlying relationships between production variables and efficiency by discipline, using Bayesian Network (BN) analysis. Two different DEA extensions are applied to calculate the efficiency of research groups: one called CCRO and the other Cross Efficiency (CE). A BN model is proposed as a method to analyze the results obtained from DEA. BNs allow us to recognize peculiarities of each discipline in terms of scientific production and the efficiency frontier. Besides, BNs provide the possibility for a manager to propose what-if scenarios based on the relations found.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to empirically evaluate the effect of heterogeneity in inter‐organizational collaboration networks on international high‐quality scientific performance of the most reputed business management schools in Latin America according to AméricaEconomía ranking. Design/methodology/approach Starting from the debate between advantages and disadvantages of heterogeneity in scientific performance framed in the debate between organizational population ecology and organizational institutionalism theories, this research explores the relationship between heterogeneity, reputation and the most important features for doing research. Using a binomial negative regression, the paper evaluates the partial effect of those variables in the count of scientific production. Findings There is an isomorphical tendency from the most reputed schools to establish heterogeneous networks, showing empirical evidence to normative proposals from Latin America, specially formulated in the light of Sabato triangle. Also there are differentiations between schools in aspects like human capital, double‐degree agreements, and schools’ trajectories. Research limitations/implications It is necessary to choose a wider sample of schools and to include Latin American journals. The study of diversity (between researchers) and its relationship with heterogeneity (between organizations) is also needed. Practical implications The research shows that elite business management schools in Latin America that present better performance also present high levels of heterogeneity in their inter‐organizational collaboration. Therefore, the promotion of heterogeneity could enhance scientific performance and improve techno‐economical networks. Social implications This research hopes to aim the research policy design to be able to steer and promote heterogeneity that could improve the relationship between producers and users of knowledge. Originality/value The relationships between reputation, heterogeneity, and scientific performance in administration in Latin America had not been addressed empirically. The worth of this research is the empirical confirmation to the advantages of heterogeneity, rather than intellectual capital features of schools, in research collaboration that contribute to the debate about heterogeneity and performance.